logicp_writings/covidism/Denis Rancourt TLAV.md

Interview with Denis Rancourt

Outstanding compilation of information a lot of information to go through. Objective is to go through the point that this is getting at, go through the data, and so forth. What drew your attention to this topic?

Right away, when there was all this noise about a new pandemic and covid and SARS, right away as a scientist my first reaction was: Are there more people dying? Let's look at these numbers.

The first paper I wrote on this, I went alone as quickly as I could, and I wrote a paper on all-cause mortality. And in that paper I announced that there had been a mass-homicide. Following the announcement of the pandemic, hospitals and doctors responded in a way that was contrary to protecting the health of fragile individuals, and killed off a lot fo people very quickly in many jurisdictions (New York, is a prominent case). They literally killed elderly, fragile people by the measures that they applied. I demonstrated that in our very first paper, and so I've always had an eye towards all-cause mortality, and the data comes out, it keeps coming out, so you can keep an eye on it and see what's happening.

In Canada, for example, the deaths came down below what is the norm, given the historical trend after that peak, because they had accelerated the death of vulnerable people, and then there were less vulenrable people to die in the following weeks and months. So you it actually slopes below the norm.

Then we kept an eye to see what it's going to do from now on, and it's very different from one jurisdiction from the next.

We've looked at France in great detail, and found some amazing things. With the United States we went state by state, huge compared to regular sized countries, everything is different from one state to the next, 50 of them, 50 points on a graph from which to draw correlations. A powerful tool to study.

Also, the deaths in the US have been massive compared to other countries in the world. So those 2 things combined, state by state differences, size of country, number of deaths, gives us a lot of statistics to work with to find correlations that you wouldn't otherwise find.

Reorganization of data - lying with statistics - for instance, based on what you just said, we might see a ip in the overall death beacuse sa lot of that death was pushed forward from 2020

It's a so-called tinder-effect - hard to observe, difficult to find hard evidence of it - we were maybe the frist to see it in Canada - immediately following sharp accleeration of death, we saw it come below, but the tinder-effect to see season to season or year to year, that's harder to see and harder to be convinced that that's what's really what's happening.

What's dramatic about the US is that starting in the covid era March 11 onward, the behaviour of All-Cause mortality vs time by state by age by sex is dramatically different tan compared to decads before. Off the charts. We'll show graphs to that effect from the paper.

That shows you that something dramatic is happeing, and the question is what is it? We argue that there's no way this could be a viral respiratory disease - none of the classic signatures:

• seasonal increase in winter deaths due to viral respiratory disease and accompanied by a surge in propogation and occurence of those diseases is always the same state-to-state, the same mortality (increase), same in all western countries where it's measured, same pattern as a function of time, for 100 years. aLl of a sudden now, a phenomenon where state to stae the mortality curves are completely different.
• The actual peak in the summer which has never been seen before.
• In some states, it doesn't occur at all (like NY)
• States where nothing happens until th final summer, or the second winter

Those differences, state to state, the heterogeneity is contrary to everything we know about viral respiratory diseases.

What's the argument for that? what's the lgoic about why that's unprecedented?`

They have a very clever way of avoiding this problem - they never talk about heterogeneity - they never bring up the that these differences are unheard of. They don't have to explain it because it never really is something that they put forward as a new phenomenon - because if you do put it forward, you need to explain why it's occurring, and not before. We explain that it's because the responses are different and the effect of those responses are different from one jursdictio to the next.

I want to discuss the all-cause mortality discussion. Swiss policy research came out with early styudy that there was no breakdown between age - basically the same as normal age mortality, for avg US or Canada - pretty similar. Can you explain all-cause mortality and break down why the cohorts showed there was no pandemic?

All-cause mortality means deaths due to any cause, every cause. You don't resolve or distinguish cause of deaths, you just count them as a function of time. The number of deaths. When counting deaths in this way, you know how old the person was, their sex, where they died, and so on. All that information is tagged to this counting of deaths, but you do not try to resolve what they died from (that exercise is tenuous, especially with viral respiratory disease that are accompanied by other cofactors. Meaningless to talk about a situation with lots of cofactors causing the final breakdown of the biological unit.)

We argue that it's nonsense to try to attribute deaths because that process is going to be very political. Politics of the institutions what the MDs are exposed to, what is beign said in the media, it becomes an extremely political process, and this has been known for 100 years, that attribution is political and completely biased and I have to say that molecualr tests have not improved this whtasoever. The so-called molecular tests that help you analyze and do a lab measurement haas not in aanyway aided this difficulty. Therefore, we look at robust data, we don't bother with that stuff, we look at what we can say rigorously from all ca-use mortality as a function of time . resolved by age group and sex and jurisdiction. An it turns out you can infer and prove many things on the basis of hard data like that.

earliest study I saw, early out of gate that was pushed back, came out that when you break it down by age, it doesn't appear that there is a representation for the most vulnerable.

Need to look at specific case and jurdisdiction. Deathi IS highly dependent on age, older people die mroe, and that effect is exponential, and that's true in general for most causes of death, All cause mortality shows it's clearly the case, there are fewer people in those age groups 85+, but they are the main source of the deaths that you count there's definitely an age strification. The mortality from different age groups - what does it look like historically, and during the covid period does it change for a given age group. What we found, unambiguously, is that younger people die much more in the covid -era, in the Canada and in the UNited States, so and especially young men. So you really see that as soon as you turn on this announcement from the WHO you get an immediate rise in the constant trend of deaths in, let's say the 15-24 olds for example, that age category - it rises and it goes up to a much higher plateau than normally you've had for a decade or more, and it stays at that plateau, it doesn't come down seasonally or anything, it's just more deaths generally, in that younger age group especially for men. And so we showed this detail for Canada, ad the same sort of thing happens in the United States. You can look at these mortality trends by age group and by state etc.

THe fact that younger people died and that the mortality peaks are disproportionately from young adults and young people, and that is completely inconsistent with mortality from a viral respiratory disease, and does not jive whatsoever with what is known and said to be known about COVID, at what ages it causes death, etc. There are official numbers that they put forward as teh truth for this new pathogen, and it the deaths just do not compute with that.

And the many inconsistencies we continue to see is the overall representation of children are dramatically unverified and very low compared to what we keep seeing, such as the collapsed athletes, etc.. Steve Kirsch had a recent study showing a 60x increase in pro-athlete adverse events

Reported in the media, what we can know about, because there's not a systematic way of recording these sorts of things. The data is difficult to work with.

We work with hard data, fo rall-cause.

So, we start at the beginning, let's look at the historic trend, maybe we can go to a figure here.

What I wanted to jump into after is what is actually causing the issues. Government action etc? but first the graph

We start at the beginning, this graph shows all-cause mortality by year, integrated year by year as a function of tim starting in 1900 until 2020. This is not normalized in any way, total number of deaths in the US as a function of time measured on a by-year basis. ANd what you see is that deaths are increasing all the time, because population is increasing dramatically over that time period, more people = more deaths.

One of the big peaks you see is in 1918 and that is the so-called Spanish Flu, but it wasn't a flu at all, there are several scientific articles of very high quality that demonstrate that that was actually a bacterial pneumonia epidemic that operated in av ery fragile population just after the first world war adn the difficulties in adapting coming home from that and so on. Young people were kille dand it was from bacterial pneumonia.

You see the changes year ot year pretty regular, with bumps that are related to the dust bowl and the great depression and you can see a bit of an excess later with men around the Vietnam War and things like that. But then what you see, on the end in the final year, is an uptick that's quite significant.

That's the larger mortality for the COVID period. So that's what the data looks like whne yo udon't do anything except make a graph of deaths as a function of time.

But, if we normalize that by the population in that year, you get the next figure - and so you see that if you nromalize by population deaths generally have been going down because of conditions are not as severe as they were, people live longer because of general health, healthier conditions, less harsh lives, and so on. And on this graph you still see that uptick which is from the 2020 and it shows you that if you want to get as a high a death rate as in 2020, you have to go all the way back until just after the second world war. Created by the government measures,t o produce that amount of death.

Two quick thoughts - one, it's interesting to note that their comparison to this being the biggest pandemic, it shows that the comparison to 1918 doesn't really hold, but doesn't that spike seem tos uggest that there was something going on?

Right, there were enormously more deaths all of a sudden, and we have to ask why, and what are the reasons that you believe that that is?

The other thing is, not only is it not comparable to 1918, but people also died more earlier on, for all kinds of reasons. The political systems were more vicious to workers and those in the lower strata of the dominance hierarchy, so there were many more deaths. After the dust bowl and great depression, there was the New Deal which improved things dramatically in the United States. And after hardships of the WW, people are generally not going to take it any more, and more of a sense that things have to be fairer than they have been. And tht has generally improved situations. This is the social theory of why this is. The explanation of why mortality comes down is as much political and social science as it is anything else. Even more so than advances in medicine, which is a load of crap.

Please explain that rea lquick

Well, the people who study social animals have known for a long time, it's now extremely well-established, that the main cause of shortening the lifespan, the main factor that correlates most strongly with death is the degree to which you are oppressed/subjected to constant stress from people above you in the dominance hierarchy. All social animals construct and maintain dominance hierarchies, and that includes humans. The biggest factor is the psychological stress you are subjected to and experience in your life, and teh other big factor is social isolation.

If an individual is made to be an outcase and is socially isolated, they'r enot going to live very long. Psychologically that has a huge effect. So those are the 2 biggest health determinants that we know. Virtually nothing to do with advances in medicine.

The first and second causes of death are heart probelms and cancer, and medicine does not, medicine can help you in the immediate if you have a heart attack, but regarding heart disease itself it's of no help, regarding cancer itself it's not of measurable help, in fact medicine itself, the practice of medicine as we knw it in society is the third leading cause of death.

So you could calculate that if medicine were to disappear, life expectancy would go up a little.

And we point that out time an time again

It' scounter to the propaganda that we're being subjected to, but it's a very real thing and the medical establishments have recognized this, there are dozens of journals abou tmedical error as a problem as a systemic problem and so on. So it's completeley well established that bad diagnoses, bad treatments, bad prescriptions, or good prescriptions of things that rae bad that they say are good, all of these things are huge killers.

We also have a factor os politics in that process -a ctions being driven by political agendas as opposed to hwat's really appropriate.

The politics is such that this killer medical system is allowed to flourish and benefit and be a parasite on society. The poltiics is such that it allows that. THe discussion we're having is not completely off-topic, because what we demonstrate in this paper is that there was improper diagnosis of tens of thousands of people int he United States that had, along with a viral respiratory disease, it almost always there was a bacterial pneumonia, but the medical profession recommended that you do not give antibiotics because it's a viral infection.

There was a drop of about half, half the rpescriptions of antibiotics in the united states during the COVID period. At the same time that there was a massive increase of bacterial pneumonia. And that increase is recorded in the CDC data. They actualyl have bacterial lung infection as something that they record along COVID, and it's massive. So that woudl have killed a lot of people, in a sense. So by removing antibiotics and treatment of bacterial pneumonia they recreated the conditions that you had in 1918 before antibiotics were available, when you had a pneumonia outbreak because of the severe social conditions that people were sujected to that gave them a lot of stress and so on. So they recreated the conditions to have a bacterial pneumonia epidemic on a massive scale.

And we have lots of maps and data to argue that this is infact what happened.

Let's talk about specific pneumonia aspect of this and government interventions taht could lead to this specifically. I also wanted to point out that this was going on long before COVID - includes all daeaths with pneumonia, influenza and/or COVID-19 listed on the death certificate. Because as I understand it they call this secondary pneumonias, so it just gets jammed in there.

Researchers who look at statistics know that you cannot resolve a death from influenza from a death from bacterial pneumonia, and they don't try, that's why they use this parameter, a combination of all these respiratory conditions that kill people, and they look at that because it's mroe reliable, rather than for political or economic reasons or selling flu shots separating it all out. That's well-known.

But that data, even if you look at that combined data and you include what they call COVID, in the covid period, it shoots up by a factor of 10 or more. It' sincredible the number of deaths that are said to be of that type. It basically amounts to the excess deaths in all-cause mortality. It' sa huge effect and more than half of thos are admitted to be bacterial pneumonia. There was a HUGE dpidemic of bacterial pneumonia that no one's pointing out. ANd it was not treated - it's almost criminal.

Ivermectin is talked about a lot, and doctors say you can save lives with ivermectin etc

Ivermectin, in a scientific paper that we cite, has been proven to be an effective anti-bacterial agent, especially against bacteria which attack the lungs. It's in th escientific literature, so I believe that many doctors went along with the idea of seeing COVID everywhere, but were actually treating bacterial pneumonia with ivermectin.

What's interesting is that while we are walking through this, all the loose ends are tied up in this discussion. People might want to dismiss this out of hand`

Our paper brings ti all together. Let me go right to the heart otf the paper in telling you about it.

IN state to state variations of excess mortality compared to the historical trends, the excess of all-cause mortality. We looked for correlations - why is it so different from state to state?

Dramatically different, even once you normalize for the population of the state. So we looked for properties that can be measured and tabulated on a state-wide basis and we looked for correlations in those parameters. We got 50 points on the graph because there's 50 states. What did we find?

A few factors correlate very strongly with death:

• poverty
• obesity
• climate heat (hot summer temperatures in the Southern US)

Correlate very strongly with excess mortality to the point where if you reduced them to zero according to the correlation, you wouldn't have an excess mortality in the summer for example. So we found those strong correlations and showed them, and then asked why.

When you look at excess mortality in the winter (mortality is always seasonal, with many more deaths in the winter). So you can define excess winter deaths, a total number, and that number for decades has not correlated with poverty or obesity or climate in the southern states. No, it has not correlated, but all of a sudden in the COVID-era you have many more deaths, and those deaths correlate with those factors.

So you ask what the heck is going on? We came to the following conclusion: The thing that everyone is ignoring is the vast importance of psychological stress on the individual. Because psychological stress directly by various known metabolic mechanisms depresses your immune system and makes you more susceptible to death from any disease.

Now, what did that stress look like? And why were the poor people who were obese in hot climates more subjected to the effects of that stress?

SO, the stress involved completely transforming people's lives. Especially for the poor, because they are not in air conditioned spaces, and they are no longer able to go into public air conditioned spaces to escape the heat, or to sit in the shade and talk wth their friends, because they have to be isolated, and so on.

All of their unofficial, uinder the table employment and activities that they normally do are basically removed. They disappear because you can't have contacts anymore, and all of this economic activity if you like, coping mechanism activity, is disappeared for the people who need it most, who have developed ways for coping with the fact that they are poor and obese in a hot climate.

So the stress from the measures on those people is much greater. And it akes away all their coping mechanisms. And that is why those populations were targetted and that's where all the deaths occurred, basically. In a nutshell, that is what our paper is about.

It's hard for me - I hope people will consider a eugenics mindset in that outcome. Essentially this boils down to the big picture of the lockdowns and restrictions creating the stress that drove their immune systems to be suppressed, to a degree. And other things like masks which create the conditions for increased illness, like bacterial pneumonia.

I would like to take you to some maps - later maps. The heterogeneous mortality - vastly different behaviours in their all-cause mortality by time. ALl-cause mortality as a function of time over several years from 2014 to present, and you can see a very regular up and down seasonal pattern up until the covid-era when the pandemic is announced, and then from state to state it ca be very different in that cluster during the covid period, the relative magnitudes, the positions of the peaks, etc.

And so then this is what the pre-covid period looks like, alway svery regular, always the same, always synchronous - the winter diseases propagate from state to state. there's no evidence for a spread mechanism in our understanding of the seasonal pattern of all-cause mortality. Against the idea that whatever is causing the deaths actually has to spread from state to state.

A very interesting thing - a lot less is known about these phenomena than we tend to admit, and this is a stringent test of these ideas. It doesn't spread, it occurs simultaneously everywhere, but deaths are higher. Even the shapes within a season are the same from state to state. You can go across Europe, it's the same timing, it's the same shapes.

That's a stringent empirical test of some of these theories about what's going on here.

One thign to point out - you made a point to say, don't trust science, trust the scientific method. One thing I see today in the scientific field is it's not that we're trying to find the answers, but we have all the answers. A lot are tsarting to say sometimes scientific studies come out and it turns out they're not accurate.

Well listen I'm a scientist with decades of experience, I have published 100 articles in different peer reviewd articles. I have been a reviewer for decades. And I can tell you that in any given field, there's a lot more that we don't know that we have no idea about than the little that we do know. And therefore, when you try to say something about what you think you know, there are a lot of mistakes. You're saying a lot of things that are incorrect.

That's the truth. We know very little.

This is a blow-up with the covid-era and how different it can be from state to state.

Excess Summer Mortality

In the south! The southern states, and it is almost perfectly correltaed with heat. Arizona is an extremely hot state, more so than the two states on either side. We found an immediate geographical pattern that suggested to us that heat and poverty. And we know that obesity is correlated to poverty as well, and associated with many health probelms and difficulties.

This is what opejned the door for us to start really seeing visually what these correlations were like.

Plot state comparison - excess mortality against product of obesity and poverty

A strong correlation with obesity and poverty, and even stronger when you do the product of the two. If you are both, that's the parameter that really correlates to death in the period.

Life Expectancy By State

Red and Pink - low life expectancy (strongly correlatedt to poverty)

Antibiotics map

Number of prescriptions per capita of antibiotics. Shows you when you compare the maps is tha the medica lcause of death that most limits life expectancy is a bacterial infection and the deadliest bacterial infections are pneumonia - bacteria have a field day because of all teh moist tissue and high surface contact area with the air. That's the killer that reduces life expectancy in the poor populations of the United States. This shows us that there is a background of bacterial infections that's always there and that is an important phenomenon in the most vulnerable popualtions of poor people, mostly in the Southern United States. That's something to keep in mind, and then you can look at the CDC data where you have pneumonia going throw the roof and, at the same time, you have a decrease by almost half of prescriptions of antibiotics - because there were scientific papers explaining to MDs that you need to stop prescribing antibiotics because you've got to stop assuming that there's a bacterial infection when the real killer is SARS-CoV-2.

So the MDs who want to act responsibly are saying "they're telling me that we're overprescribing antibiotics and they're giving my guidelines not to prescribe antibiotics" and, as a result, you have a drop in prescriptions at the same time that you have a surge in bacterial pneumonia in the United States.

It's absolutely, it's not an exaggeration to call it criminal.

I find it impossible to look at this data and not think that there was a willful action that happened - a conscious choice to take action that would stop the treatment ofwhat people need

I have a different view, the following: I do not believe that there is a direct genocidal intent. There are, of course, a lot of leaders of thought and analysts among the elite that are of the view that the population is too great on the planet, an dit would be great to reduce, etc all taht's true.

But I don't believe that the system that is driving this has the intent of exterminating people. But I do believe, as always, that in any dominance hierarchy what stabilizes is that you are applying constant oppression and stress, and that always has the effect of mkaing the individuals lower in the dominance hierarchy sicker, less healthy, and likely to die sooner.

That's a feature of all dominance hierarchies - it's a biological feature that you respond to stress in this way.

I see what was done during COVID as an example of that, because it imposing a vaccine, imposing the false notion of a virulent pathogen that has all of a sudden arisen and you have to obey us about how to behave and distance and wear a mask - the obedience training and the imposition is a form of direct oppression in causing stress on individuals, and i seee it as another mechanism of this kind of oppression within a dominance hierarchy. It's all about obedience.

So these deaths are the result of being subjected to severe dominance hierarchy stress intended to get you to take your place and be obedient.

I agree that I've never held the mindset that this is about decreasing the population, though there is logic to that, but it doesn't make sense on a grander scale as to why that would be the case. But within that, whether it' sbaout necessarily lowering population, or creating a perception, I would say that the point about mkaing a conscious choice to lower antibiotics when it's obvious by the data that they needed it - take that one point, how would you argue that it was not a conscious choice to hurt people?

It doesn't have to be a choice to hurt them, it can be a choice to create what is seen (deaths) to support your narrative which you put forward to get more power and get what you want. The thing abotu population and genocide is a bit crazy because, for example, Russia is applying a lot of these obedience training methods regarding the pandemic, and the last thing Russia wants is to reduce their population.

Their entire system is trying to generate mor ebirths and families and more population because that is what gives them strength, in teh end.

THe reason china is so strong is because of its massive population.

So from a geopolitical perspective, in terms of a nation, population makes you strong. One of the reasons the US is so powerful is because of its large population.

So, population gives a nation strength, there is no doubt about that, but at the same time you have this global parasitic class of the elite that have been allowed to play a role within the US driven and protective empire, because they do play a role, but they are at the same time parasites that can be harmful to the empire.

Some of those people in their thinkign is - the more people there rae, the more at risk we are. Which is true, the more people you have, the more they are talkign to each other, they more they are interconnected, the more they are exchanging information, the more they are building their own ways of surviving and having society and community, and this puts the super rich at risk because the injustice is visible and people won't like it politcis and so on.

So for them to feel secure, they would have to control everyone and have less population. Control population growth and how people interact, if you want to feel safe as a parasitic elite on this planet.

A much more important factor is geopolitics. None of this COVID madness would have occurred if it didn't also serve the deep state, and you have real geopolitical reasons for being.

Let's take a quick detour into that topic

a dramatic reduction in civili liberties and a dramatic increase in ability to surveil the populations is huge for the military and the deep state, becaue right now geopolitically the US is winding down its hegemony - it's forced to because it's unavoidable - China and Eurasia are developing and they're going to develop and they are avoiding use of the US dollar and doing what they do - grow and develop.

The US is coming down from being the world leader, and that is frightening to al ot of people and they resist that. They want to be aggressive enough to resist that as effectively as possible. Being aggressive means not cooperating economically anymore, breaking rules that have been established in the world. That has consequences on the economic, and therefore that has consequences on the dmoestic population of the united states.

So people will not be happy about the way things are going. The domestic population becomes a threat because they will demand some political say in how to distribute the more limited wealth that we'reg oing to have. So I think that they see the domestic threat, as well as the geopolitical threat, and they want to do what they can on the geopolitical frame at the same time that they have much mroe control over the domestic threat of democracy. THe threat of democracy.

That's how I undrstand what's going on here. I think the biggest driver of COVID is ggeopoitics at the highest level.

Interesting that you say that, because that's one fo the points that is hardest for people to wrap their head around in regard to the possible coordination. James Corbett talks about the engineered fall of the west and the transition elitist deep state - maybe just the last point on this, what are your thoughts about possible coordination between large nations.

I don't believe it - of course there' salways cooperation - these are huge nations with many ties of various companies and various economic ties and exchange ties and scientific and cultural exchanges - always a lot of things going on, these are not closed vessels.

But that does not mean that the much bigger reality is the reality of these huge and powerful nation states. China is a reality. And it is looking after itself. It's looking after its growth, its development. The integrity of its political system and so on - that is the main focus for the CHinese nation. The same with Russia.

The only country that does not have a strong sense of that these days, which has lost it, is the United States - because it has become used to being the boss of everything, and therefore at home it's not the boss of anything and it's letting the domestic economy and domestic culture and cohesion just go to hell. It has let it weaken, which is why I thin tha tTrump ha da huge insight - make america great again. That was, I believe, it's tied to a deep insight abou thow you have to have - you can not be the master of the world if you do not have a strong domestic nation, at the heart, beacuse otherwies it will be hollow and it will fall apart.

So I think there is something of an insightin that.

That's my comment about Trump.

I dn't believe that there is a global elite that is coordinating how these large nation states are cooperating, and what they would like and how to control the world - No. I believe that there is very real geopolitics involved here - the battles and struggles between China, Russia, Eurasia, the United States, the way Latin America and Africa are exploited, the struggles to cooperate with them more fairly vs just outright exploiting them and controlling their politics, and so on - all of these struggles are the big struggles and they are very real. They don't tell you about Geopolitics and dont 'want you to understand this.

Of course there is an elite, they are parasites and they can disappear tomorrow and be controlled easily. Putin met the newly formed billionaires of Russia.

He said "Listen, you did a good one, you took advantage of the instability, you grabbed some wealth, you got it- I'm gonna let you keep it, but there's gonn abe one rule. You have to follow the rules. You have to follow the law"

Who makes the law? The state makes the law. What is the law? The law is taxation policy, inheritance policy, what private corporations are allowed and not allowed to do, and so on. Putin made it very clear to them that tehre's efficiency in them controlling pieces of the population, but if you cross the line you will go straight to jail. Follow the domestic system in place and you are not going to cross that line.

So, those powers are still the greatest powers.

There's a lot of discussions to be had around geopolitics and the inner personal communications between leaders. A lot to be discussed there, but I tend to think there' sa lot more coordination than what we say at the least. I talk about the WHO and WEF and how even what they're setting up today - this public/private partnerhsip is setting up an interesting form - during this biosecurity health situation - that forms its own World Government as it is now

But, Ryan, don't forget that what you see - the World Economic Forum and the United Nations - what you see is what you are allowed to see. We don't see the other stuff. These guys who actually publicly show themselves and are the speaking heads, that's what you're allowed to see. So of course they're doing propaganda and messaging for their self-interest. An dthey'll coordinate that as much as they can, because there's a lot of money to be made. Pharma has a lot of lobbyists and they want to make sure taht they stay on top in temrs of making incredible profits - but in order to do that, they have to demonstrate that they are serving the empire.

Back to the concept of the illusion to drive in what we're discussing. One thing to bring in before we get into the vaccines - the idea of the bacterial pneumonia - specifically masks are a big part of what I want to talk about with you - but other thoughts about what drove that and whether or not this was an intentional action or just a byproduct

I have not seen convincing scientific work establishing that if you wear a lot of masks in the population you're going to transmit bacterial infections more. I haven't seen that. What I do see is that the general health is what matters.

So, if the population and society is extremely stressed for economic reasons, family reasons, famly breakup, comign out of a war, the state police always present on the streets and bashing people - all of these things are determining the health of the individual, and it's the susceptibility of the individual to succumb to infection that matters more than the spread of infection.

What you need to understand is that these infections are always present. You don't have to spread - you just need to create the conditions for them to be killers of individuals. They don't have to spread. You always have a whole flora of bacteria in your lungs an dit's always ready to pounce in there, as soon as your immune system is weaker and so on, they're going to take over. And those are the reasons that the winter death pattern is synchronous. It's not about spreading.

Micriobiologists have a meme that they say - "There is everything everywhere". So this notion that it's about spread - it's like the notion about FOrest Fires. Forest Fires are not about ignition. The smokey the bear thing is misleading. Is a fairy tale. If you have a drought that lasts a long time, hot weather, and a lot of combustible material that has accumulated in the underbrush - there's going to be a major fire! Because it only takes one lightning shot or spark or one anything - there's always sources of ignition - but it's the conditiosn that give you that major fire.

I wrote a paper on Forest Fires where I showed where the most sighted paper about forest fires being caused by global warming is completely wrong. They compaed the number of forest fires you can see with the newest technologies to when they were using binoculars from towers, and there were more fires. But when you actually look at the record in tree rings and lake sediments, there were way bigger fires in the past, and there are way less fires now. And fires are natural, have been there, many species have adapted to them and expect big fires, it's part of their cycle, and so on.

So my paper was debunking that paper, and other experts have also said that it was just garbage, but they couldn't get it published in the biggest journal of science, where the original one had been published. I know something about forest fires.

Perfect analogy - speaks to a lack of - the drought obviously being an aspect that's being exacerbated by people in the area. Jjust watned to throw this out there, about lowering the general health (masks) I alwayas refrence this from BMJ in 2015. Randomized Control Trial of cloth vs medical mask, and the main finding is that moisture retention and reuse of the cloth mask, and poor filtration may increase the risk of infection. Adding that to the larger discussion - it's obvious that this being added to the mix can increase risk of bacterial pheumonia.

For sure if you are forcing people to wear masks, and you're frustrating their breathing and making them uncomfortable, nad stressing them out it can't be good.

Of course, it's true, and there'll be alot of bacteria growing on that cloth, and these surgical masks are hydrophobic. There is a difference there, but you know these are small effects compared to the large effects that we found in our paper.

The main thing which one has to say about health, which serious people know, is it's all about psychological stress. That's the pre-dawned determining factor.

Professor Sheldon Cohen spent decades studying why people get influenza and get really sick from it. He started his studies in the 60s and 70s when you were allowed to infect healthy University students to see what would happen. What he found was, unambiguously, that the students who had stressful lives and felt and experienced stress in their lives, they were the ones who got sick, and they got more infected. It didn't matter that you were trying to infect them all, it was only those ones who got sick. Using known strains of influenza and trying to infect them, literally.

He pursued that work and found that the most important factor is how socially isolated those students were.

And since then we've come to understand a lot more about stress. One of the main thigns that we've come to learn about stress is that the negative physiological impact of stress is orders of magnitude greater in an elderly person than in a young person. So if you apply that stress to an elderly person, it's going to be much more deadly, and potentialyl much deadlier than for a young person. This is probably a large part of why so many people were killed in homes.

Let me ask you abotu cortisol. he fight-or-flight reaction

Nothing is simple in the sense that when you identify a molecule that has this kind of effect, it's never linear. For example stress - it turns out that short term stress that you adapt to and then move on actually invigorates the immune system. It keeps you healthy. It's the long term chornic stress that is the killer. So if you're really chronically feeling stress, that's a real killer.

In practice this means that you're going to experience chronic stress if your circumstances are transformed from what you're used to and what you'bve adapted to to something that you have a hard time accepting that this could be the new normal, and that this is unfair. I've always talked to my buddies in the shade all summer, and so on. So when you transform someone's lief - loss of employment, loss of employment, loss of relationships. War can have this impact. A war that can last a long tie devastastes health.

So it's chronic stress that kills and it kicks in and is experienced because of how you see your life and your place in society, particular if you see it as having been transformed. So it's never simple, just a molecule or something.

There are many studies for example that show that in certian circumstances, the dominant individuals in a dominance hierarchy will actually die sooner, more health problems, because their dominance is being challenged too much by other people who want to be dominant, and in those circumstances that stress is mroe important to their personal health than the stress that they are imposing on the underlings in the dominance hierarchy. Always complicated, but nontheless stress is what's key to understanding what happened in the United States during teh covid area.

I have to admit that somebody like Fauci absolutely knows that there is an epidemic of bacterial pneumonia happening. He absolutely knows, therefore, that the recommendations not to use or overuse, in their terms, antibiotics is going to cause incredible amounts of deaths. And he's probably thinking "Great, there will be proof that there is a Pandemic.

I agree, and the data we've shown today and what you're discussion show that it's impossible to look at this and now recognize a level of conscious choice being made

Even if it's nto 100% conscious, if he wouldn't be able to verbalize it, for sure he's self-interested in going in that direction. They all are. The top people who are tied to pharma, this is what they want. They want a demonstration that there was a real pandemic. The biggest lie here is that a new pathogen appeared on earth which was more virulent than the usual thing that causes more deaths in the winter. That's a massive lie. That is not true.

We showed in our paper, maybe we can go to the graph about Canada in our paper. Because that's very stunning. one of the later graphs.

Canada

The one just abov ethat is all-cause mortality in Canada for several years, about a decade. You can see that in Canada, the bumps are always about the same size, including in the COVID period.

So when eyou sum the deaths over what we call a cycle-year (mid summer to mid summer). We do this because the surge of deaths each year is sometimes on either side of the beginning of a calendar year.

So we eliminate that counting problem by using cycle years. And the next grpah shows the mortality by cycle years as a function of time for Canada. We got into cycle 2021 here.

The last 2 points there are for the COVID-period. There is absolutely not a hint of extra mortality compared to the decadal trend that you have there.

The fluctuations around that line, the trend of increasing mortality due to increasing population. And alos aging of the population. There is no anomaly there, whatsoever. Statistically there is absolutely no SIGNAL THAT would allow you to say that in terms of yearly mortality, something special happened in Canada. So we concluded in this paper about Canada, that there was no panemic in Canada. Because by definition, a pandemic is something that causes 5 - 50 times more deaths than the usual influenza deaths, for example.

That, in the scientific literature, is what they'll tell you that a pandemic is.

There was no such thing in Canada, with huge differences from province to provinde, which never happens with a viral respiratory disease.

Prevalent immunity existed

Of course. But the point is that there was a nothing that could be called a pandemic in Canada.

This idea that you can't detect a pandemic in the all-cause mortality is something also true of the last three most recent pandemics that were claimed. You cannot find the pandemics in any all-cause mortality data, whether US, Europe or Canada. In terms of robust data of all cause mortality, there is no such thing as a respiratory pandemic.

What does that mean to you?

We talk about them in our paper, they have names/years and I'm just not remebering thatm right now. We've looked at these. We've looked for these specific pandemics that were said to be important, n all the all-cause mortality that we'. It was a bacterial pneumonia.

No pandemic in Canada, but huge excess deaths in the United States.

The Canadian-US border - two of the biggest economical exchange partners in the world. 6000 km long (land border) between US/canada. Roads across all teh cities and everything's connecte.

The size of the virus is tiny compared to the border.

It' scrazy to believe hat what happened in the US.

Jusrisdiction to jurisdiction dramatic differences in the action in term sof killing people of a virus makes no sense whastoever, given what we kno about these decisions. Period. It's proof, for the present knowledge that we have, that should be sufficient proof that there was no pandemic. And I've been saying that for amost 2 yeras now. Since the data came out.

Your previous study pointed out some of this stuff. And the maintsrream media elitist mainstrea media are even considering this information, and it is valid and sound

Well, they're not even trying to use logic and resaon. They're not even trying, it's not even among the tools that they use. Thy don't care about that stuff. All they need is a talking point, and to repeat it - that's the logic that they're working with.

Vaccination itself, what's happening there

This graph shows a blowup in the recent year / year and a half, to the present. Right before that first sudden rise, the COVID-peak. Then in the US, then another bump right in the middle of summer 2020, Then a large winter peak, very large, exceedingly large, which about half of that can be counted as, according to CDC, bacterial pneumonia. Half of those deaths are people who died bacterial pneumonia, at least, that's recognized in their own data. And that's never been publicly discussed, it's like it doesn't even exist. Then you come down from that maximum, and coming down is the natural cycle of things - you can't stay there - if a large component of this is from viral respiratory diseases, and alos the other causes of deaths that are heavy in the winter, well those are seasonal and they're going to come down, so they do comw down. And when they do come down is when they started vaccinating. The orange curve there is total # of vaccinations per day, any dose, however many doses, and the dark blue line is the number of people per day who are doubly vaccinated now. They are counted on only the 2nd dose, you see.

The vaccination campaign occurred before the next peak in all-cause mortality, which occurred later in the summer of 2021. And it's huge - bigger than anything you'd normally see in a winter peak, in the last decade. And it's occurring after the vaccination campaign has essentially ended. So, the vaccination campaign - its' even bigger than the last summer, than the summer previous. So the vaccination campaign had no impact on reducing that, whatever it is. So then you can ask, why are people dying in the summer like that, and you can notice that the number of young people who are dying in the summer is massive, it's huge. Younger people that are dying in the summer - why are they dying? Again that peak is correlated to poverty, obesity and heat. Maybe the chronic stress has lasted long enough for what was originall ythe most resilient young people are succuming to this accumulated chronic stress in teh covid period, and they finally give in);

Or, vaccination campaign had an impact on weakening immunty systems and making peple more vulnerable to ying? It's a possibility, but the correltations are the same as we had previously, which is obesity, poverty and heat.

In fact, there were about the same number of vaccinations across the street. A little less in the less densely populated states, but it's a minor factor.

I don't want to get too deep into the discussion of the vaccination efficacy and so on, because I want people to focus on what it says about the pandemic itself, but can you dive a little deeper on what your study found? This basically shows that it had no effect on that, but can you elaborate on that point for me?

It would be silly to think that because they started vaccinating there was a drop in the winter mortality which is massive. No serious scientific argument than can be made for that. Absolute humidity of the air is a big controlling factor - it controls stability of aerosol particles in the air, and therefore local transmission in the environment of viral respiratory disease. But also controls the dryness attack of your tissues and lungs an throat and so on. So humidity is one of those reason why winters are so deadly, interms of transmission, but also interms of making your tissues more vulnerble, the ones that are in contact with air, basically, your lungs. So, that's going to come down, irrespective of a vaccination campaign.

I just don't know, listen one of the things we don't know is why is there even a summer peak? Thi is the first time in epidemiology that we see summer peaks of all-cause mortality. It's unheard of. The only times you see peaks in the summer is whne there is a summer heat wave, very localized in a particular spot, and you see a surge of deaths.

We saw that in two places on the west coast, a heat wave, and we shoulw that in our paper. In 2003 in Paris there was a heatwave that killed about 10,000 elderly french people. Those are the only times that you can have a peak in the summer. And yet we have a peak in the summer, and it correlated with poverty, obesity and heat-waves.

And, why is it bigger in the second summer than in the first summer? And among even younger poeple, as well. These are the unasnwered things. To try and make a link to the vaccines is very tenuous. I wouldn't necessarily go there, but I would say that it has to be studied.

We talked about myocarditis and a lot of potentials, but that is the right way to go about this. At least, we should ask "why aren't they asking those questions?"

You have to be careful bceause the data we are examining is on the scale of the whole nation, and of entire states, and it's a massive effect of mortality. Whereas 1 in 5000 serious adverse reactions from the vaccines is a high incidence rate, but it would be a very small effect on mortality.

This research in general - no one wiht discernment can read the data you're laying out here, walk away and say - nah there's nothing to that '

Yeadon has said that thi sis the kind of data you want when you're looking for firm. Intellectually honest people out there with the ability to recognize are seeing that we are making very good points. And everyone else.

You know, Ryan, this is a truth of institutions that manage and fund science: the research that will be done is the research that they fund. Nothing else will be studied. So you asked a researcher to find the benefits of vaccine, he will do research on that and try to find benefits in order to have hi researcher renewal.

The research enterprise becomes an extremely directed and biased enterprise to support whatever state or commercial interests are driving the funding apparatus.

Dr. Ioannidis, famous epidemiologist, said that the majority of science results are false. He showed a paper about that using Bayesian influence theory, and he argued with a rigorous mathematical induction, that the majorty of scientific results have to be false, because they're looking for small effects, and people have an interest in finding an effect, and as a result, it must be false. He was talking abou tall the medical research where they use RCT to find the benefit of

And these, like the trials that were done to show that the vaccines were effective, I looked at them, I studied them, that's some of the baddest science I've ever seen. And it's expressly funded by Pharma.

You know, Pfizer in one of the papers where they argued that they have a 95% benefit, they actually say this paper was written by Pfizer. It's not even funded anymore, it's explicitly written by, and they'r eresponsible for it.

There's a big lawsuit in the United States right now, Dr Doshi, very famous expert on pandemics, he and 50 or 100 other scientists are sueing the government, why? To see the data that was used to provisionally approve the vaccines. That's what we're working with now/

A lot of this is starting to come out at the seams, and it's hard not to see a willful deception

I was appalled to see how bad it was. I could see problems that wer way beyond the very polite criticisms that I was seeing.

This has been there for a very long time, and people like the WHO an BEMJ, they called these things out in the past, like about conflating numbers, or misrepresenting pathogens

Some people like Doshi and others have continued to be vocal about it. And Ioannidis and several others.

They're there, but theirvoices are not being amplified.

Exactly what we're trying to do on this show with your study.